Daryl Schweitzer and Lynn Schweitzer v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company and Jennifer Gholson Insurance Agency
16 N.E.3d 982
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Schweitzeres sought homeowners and related coverage from American Family via Gholson after discussing needs; policy HO-5 issued Jan 18, 2008 with dwelling limit initially $261,000 and inflation/augmentation provisions increasing the limit to $326,040.
- Loss occurred December 19, 2008; American Family paid $326,040 for dwelling, plus separate payments for personal property, landscaping/debris removal, housing while rebuilding, and a nominal antenna payout; driveway damage was excluded from coverage.
- Schweitzeres alleged underpayment, delays, and misapplication of benefits, plus supposed bad faith and a claim that full replacement coverage was required by policy and agency directives.
- A 2010 theft claim and a separate driveway dispute arose, with American Family investigating and requesting statements; Lynn Schweitzer did not provide a recorded statement as requested.
- August 2012: both defendants moved for summary judgment; March 28, 2013: trial court granted summary judgment in favor of American Family and Gholson, finding no special relationship and no duty to advise, and that coverage payments and driveway denial were proper.
- The Schweitzers appealed, and the court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for Appellees on both Gholson and American Family grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to advise and existence of special relationship | Schweitzers contend a special relationship or duty to advise existed | Gholson argues no special relationship; no duty to advise under Filip/Myers | No genuine issue; no duty to advise; affirmed summary judgment for Gholson |
| Breach of policy/claims handling by American Family | Schweitzers claim American Family breached by underpaying or delaying payments | American Family asserts payments complied with policy and disputed items excluded or properly adjusted | No material fact dispute; affirmed summary judgment for American Family |
Key Cases Cited
- Filip v. Block, 879 N.E.2d 1079 (Ind. 2008) (insureds must show a special relationship for a duty to advise to exist)
- Myers v. Yoder, 921 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (agent duty to advise requires intimate relationship or special circumstance)
- Dye v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 634 N.E.2d 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (general duty of care; no duty to advise absent special relationship)
- Barnes v. McCarty, 893 N.E.2d 325 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (full coverage expectations do not by themselves create duty to advise)